Is hydrogen, rather than electric, the future for big-engined machinery?

What's Hot
13

Comments

  • VimFuegoVimFuego Frets: 15476
    TTony said:
    Saw this on the BBC site this morning ...

    "Formula 1 boss Ross Brawn says hydrogen could be future fuel"




    What made me smile though was a quote from Lando Norris included in the article;
    You just don't get the same buzz from electric cars
    You do if you plug them in the wrong way round
    :D
    I'm led to understand that on many models there's a setting that gives a buzz.

    I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • DdiggerDdigger Frets: 2335
    edited July 2021
    Yep, batteries to power large mobile machinery doesn't make sense.

    Rare earth batteries should be a niche market - sodium based batteries would be more sensible for large scale, static applications.

    http://http//pgbgroup.materials.ox.ac.uk/research/na-ion.html

    http://https//www.popularmechanics.com/science/a32743665/best-sodium-ion-battery/

    http://https//bdaily.co.uk/articles/2021/07/15/aceons-mobile-solar-power-station-to-lead-the-world-in-sodium-ion-technology

    http://http//www.bestmag.co.uk/indnews/china-deploys-world%E2%80%99s-first-sodium-ion-grid-scale-battery-ess

    Hydrogen supply to your house?  Well the original house gas supply was from coal gas and was re-purposed for natural gas, starting in the mid sixties when development drilling for natural gas kicked off in Southern North Sea (gas plants at Bacton and Theaddlethorpe etc).  I guess you could re-purpose and improve the existing infrastructure.  It would be a low pressure supply, so unless you could compress it into your cars tank, it probably wouldn't work out for refilling your car at home.

    Remember all the "cooking with gas" adverts in the early/mid 70s?  National industry British Gas drove all that along.  Someone mentioned shipping hydrogen from abroad by boat - no problem.  In fact the Gas Council (later became British Gas) were shipping natural gas from North Aftrica to Canvey Island in the early 60s.  The discovery of large gas reserves in the Southern North Sea brought that to halt.

    Large, cheap, batteries make sense for static applications.  Energy density of hydrocarbons is a big plus for mobile applications.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • siremoonsiremoon Frets: 1524
    edited July 2021
    One of the problems with Hydrogen is that the DfT is obsessed with it and thinks it is the golden bullet that will solve every problem.  Whilst it probably does have a role for some applications, the attempts by the DfT to shoe horn it into everything could well result in it in it getting a bad rap when used for the wrong things.  You couple that with the Government's desperate attempts to avoid spending any money on this green stuff and you have a problem.

    A good example of this is on the railways.  Every Government in the world except one accepts that railway electrification is a major cornerstone of any de-carbonisation programme; the exception being the UK Government.  Only one capital city is Europe has a major station worked entirely by diesel traction.  That capital is London and the station is Marylebone and there are no plans to change that.  The new railway between Oxford and Cambridge is not going to be electrified and will be worked by diesel trains and there are no plans to change that.  The DfT is going to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying for railway electrification and is pushing hydrogen and battery as viable alternatives which they are not.

    As we know an electric (and indeed a diesel) passenger train can run from London to Edinburgh easily.  A recent study showed that a viable battery powered train with the same passenger carrying capacity would under ideal conditions get no farther than York and under practical, real world conditions, would probably not make Doncaster.  By contrast a viable hydrogen powered train with the same passenger carrying capacity would struggle to reach Peterborough.  It clearly is not a golden bullet.

    If the Government want to push this green stuff then fine but let's have some up front honesty about the practicalities, costs and impact.  Without that when the fawning media finally tear themselves away from their obsession with relatively trivial issues like how people in Victorian North London town houses with no drives are going to charge up their electric cars, and start asking proper questions about the infrastructure costs, the inherent inconsistencies (and hypocrisy) in the approach and the impact on cost of living, this will all come tumbling down in a torrent of public push back.  Trying to pretend this is going to cost nothing like they are now risks undermining the whole thing. 
    “He is like a man with a fork in a world of soup.” - Noel Gallagher
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • crunchmancrunchman Frets: 11413
    siremoon said:
    One of the problems with Hydrogen is that the DfT is obsessed with it and thinks it is the golden bullet that will solve every problem.  Whilst it probably does have a role for some applications, the attempts by the DfT to shoe horn it into everything could well result in it in it getting a bad rap when used for the wrong things.  You couple that with the Government's desperate attempts to avoid spending any money on this green stuff and you have a problem.

    A good example of this is on the railways.  Every Government in the world except one accepts that railway electrification is a major cornerstone of any de-carbonisation programme; the exception being the UK Government.  Only one capital city is Europe has a major station worked entirely by diesel traction.  That capital is London and the station is Marylebone and there are no plans to change that.  The new railway between Oxford and Cambridge is not going to be electrified and will be worked by diesel trains and there are no plans to change that.  The DfT is going to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying for railway electrification and is pushing hydrogen and battery as viable alternatives which they are not.

    As we know an electric (and indeed a diesel) passenger train can run from London to Edinburgh easily.  A recent study showed that a viable battery powered train with the same passenger carrying capacity would under ideal conditions get no farther than York and under practical, real world conditions, would probably not make Doncaster.  By contrast a viable hydrogen powered train with the same passenger carrying capacity would struggle to reach Peterborough.  It clearly is not a golden bullet.

    If the Government want to push this green stuff then fine but let's have some up front honesty about the practicalities, costs and impact.  Without that when the fawning media finally tear themselves away from their obsession with relatively trivial issues like how people in Victorian North London town houses with no drives are going to charge up their electric cars, and start asking proper questions about the infrastructure costs, the inherent inconsistencies (and hypocrisy) in the approach and the impact on cost of living, this will all come tumbling down in a torrent of public push back.  Trying to pretend this is going to cost nothing like they are now risks undermining the whole thing. 



    Electrifying branch lines that do not have high frequencies is not cost effective. Installing the electrification is expensive in the first place.  Then you have many miles of cables to maintain, which will be expensive.  You will also get losses and leakage from the cables.

    Marylebone is isn't a low frequency branch line, but there are significant issues there.  Quite a lot of the Chiltern trains into Marylebone run over London Underground track, so finding a power system that would work over LU track, but also work out in the sticks would be a major problem.  Out in the sticks you wouldn't want a third rail type system.  You would want overhead wires and a pantograph, but that's incompatible with the LU section.

    For those lines where electrification is not sensible, then hydrogen does make sense.  I'm very sceptical about your statement that an electric train would struggle to reach Peterborough.   A Toyota Miraj has a range of 400 miles, which is about the same as a petrol car, and better than anything battery powered on the market at the moment.  If that's comparable with petrol in a car, it's not going to be beyond the wit of man to get decent range out of it in a train. Wherever you got that figure from, they must have an agenda against hydrogen, and be from the Neil Ferguson school of modelling.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • hollywoodroxhollywoodrox Frets: 4082
    Bill Gates recent book has massive amounts of info on all this.

    Essentially electric doesn't work for ships and planes and barely works for trucks in certain circumstances.

    Hydrogen is also problematic.
    The ideal solution would be electrofuels, but efficient manufacturing hasn't been achieved.
    Airships for moving heavy freight ,lighter than air so smaller electric motors will suffice to move them 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • hollywoodroxhollywoodrox Frets: 4082
    I look forward to a future where no one needs to own a car and an autonomous car can be summoned from a nearby grid to convey you where you need , when not in use they will be part of the national grid . Towns and city’s will also be accessed locally by electric scooters ,bicycles and skateboards ,those one wheel ,two wheel things etc . Every home will have solar panels on the roof or wherever , plus geo thermal heating , windmills ,heat exchangers etc 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • GassageGassage Frets: 30826
    TTony said:
    The debate for many people already seems to be polarising - ie the solution is either this, or that, or something else.

    I can see a mix of fuels being used, depending on requirements.

    For someone who does few miles - ie a short commute, or nipping into town - then an EV could well work.

    For users who do many miles - eg the haulage industry - then EVs wouldn't seem to have as much promise.  Ditto planes & ships.

    We're also going to have a fairly long tail of usage of petrol & diesel.  The 20m/25m vehicles on the UK's roads today, powered by one or other of those, aren't going to be replaced overnight, and nor would that be the right thing (environmentally) to do anyway.

    20years ago, diesel was the answer and the govt was encouraging the use of diesel cars.  Today, diesel is evil.  (Apparently).

    Today, EVs are the answer and the govt is encouraging us all to "go green". 

    But in 20 years time .... EVils ....
    ;)


    Tony,

    Method of power delivery is key- EV works if you can deliver a localised constant supply such as OLE - as a simple e.g. the point above highlighted- that can be largely solved by rail post HS2 with first mile/last mile drop offs via rail local delivery centres and then drones. This WILL happen. So they're a lot closer than you might think.

    This is why I get irked by HS2 critics- the whole point is to get freight out of lorries on roads.

    *An Official Foo-Approved guitarist since Sept 2023.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 24601
    siremoon said:
    One of the problems with Hydrogen is that the DfT is obsessed with it and thinks it is the golden bullet that will solve every problem.  Whilst it probably does have a role for some applications, the attempts by the DfT to shoe horn it into everything could well result in it in it getting a bad rap when used for the wrong things.  You couple that with the Government's desperate attempts to avoid spending any money on this green stuff and you have a problem.

    A good example of this is on the railways.  Every Government in the world except one accepts that railway electrification is a major cornerstone of any de-carbonisation programme; the exception being the UK Government.  Only one capital city is Europe has a major station worked entirely by diesel traction.  That capital is London and the station is Marylebone and there are no plans to change that.  The new railway between Oxford and Cambridge is not going to be electrified and will be worked by diesel trains and there are no plans to change that.  The DfT is going to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying for railway electrification and is pushing hydrogen and battery as viable alternatives which they are not.

    As we know an electric (and indeed a diesel) passenger train can run from London to Edinburgh easily.  A recent study showed that a viable battery powered train with the same passenger carrying capacity would under ideal conditions get no farther than York and under practical, real world conditions, would probably not make Doncaster.  By contrast a viable hydrogen powered train with the same passenger carrying capacity would struggle to reach Peterborough.  It clearly is not a golden bullet.

    If the Government want to push this green stuff then fine but let's have some up front honesty about the practicalities, costs and impact.  Without that when the fawning media finally tear themselves away from their obsession with relatively trivial issues like how people in Victorian North London town houses with no drives are going to charge up their electric cars, and start asking proper questions about the infrastructure costs, the inherent inconsistencies (and hypocrisy) in the approach and the impact on cost of living, this will all come tumbling down in a torrent of public push back.  Trying to pretend this is going to cost nothing like they are now risks undermining the whole thing. 

    The Germans are switching to hydrogen-powered trains and have some in service:


    The UK is testing hydrogen-powered trains which will provide the perfect solution for lines that cannot be electrified. It also means that it could be cost-effective to open smaller branch lines to connect towns and cut the number of cars on the road. There's some work going on where I live to do this - the main roads tend to run north/south. There's very little that connects the west of the county to the east and beyond. It could be cost-effective to build a railway if it were powered by hydrogen.


    Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • GassageGassage Frets: 30826

    Fretwired said:

    The Germans are switching to hydrogen-powered trains and have some in service:


    The UK is testing hydrogen-powered trains which will provide the perfect solution for lines that cannot be electrified. It also means that it could be cost-effective to open smaller branch lines to connect towns and cut the number of cars on the road. There's some work going on where I live to do this - the main roads tend to run north/south. There's very little that connects the west of the county to the east and beyond. It could be cost-effective to build a railway if it were powered by hydrogen.


    The power on a railway is only about 11%- the cost of buiding the rail makes no odds

    *An Official Foo-Approved guitarist since Sept 2023.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 24601
    Gassage said:

    Fretwired said:

    The Germans are switching to hydrogen-powered trains and have some in service:


    The UK is testing hydrogen-powered trains which will provide the perfect solution for lines that cannot be electrified. It also means that it could be cost-effective to open smaller branch lines to connect towns and cut the number of cars on the road. There's some work going on where I live to do this - the main roads tend to run north/south. There's very little that connects the west of the county to the east and beyond. It could be cost-effective to build a railway if it were powered by hydrogen.


    The power on a railway is only about 11%- the cost of buiding the rail makes no odds

    But not all rail lines can be electrified, either due to environmental features like cliffs, forests, and tunnels or simple infrastructure costs.

    Transpennine electrification was budgeted at £2.9 billion - but the minister at the time, Chris Gayling, said "there may be insufficient benefits to justify the cost of electrification" .. Grant Shapps the current transport minister has said the £2.9 billion is not enough but he's keen to electrify the whole railway.

    However, Network Rail has pointed out that it may not be technically possible due to the "inherently challenging topography." Enter hydrogen or battery-powered trains.




    Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • LastMantraLastMantra Frets: 3822
    I don't think it really matters we just need to start using less energy, wherever it comes from. Unfortunately that might be more difficult to achieve than anything. 
    Even if we were to discover some kind of free energy what would we use it for anyway? Producing more waste and pollution. 


    Years ago when I was building pedals and working on amp there was talk of making capacitors out of banana skins and things. What happened to all that? 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 11789
    Bill Gates recent book has massive amounts of info on all this.

    Essentially electric doesn't work for ships and planes and barely works for trucks in certain circumstances.

    Hydrogen is also problematic.
    The ideal solution would be electrofuels, but efficient manufacturing hasn't been achieved.
    Airships for moving heavy freight ,lighter than air so smaller electric motors will suffice to move them 
    until the wind blows the wrong way
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 11789

    Fretwired said:
    siremoon said:
    One of the problems with Hydrogen is that the DfT is obsessed with it and thinks it is the golden bullet that will solve every problem.  Whilst it probably does have a role for some applications, the attempts by the DfT to shoe horn it into everything could well result in it in it getting a bad rap when used for the wrong things.  You couple that with the Government's desperate attempts to avoid spending any money on this green stuff and you have a problem.

    A good example of this is on the railways.  Every Government in the world except one accepts that railway electrification is a major cornerstone of any de-carbonisation programme; the exception being the UK Government.  Only one capital city is Europe has a major station worked entirely by diesel traction.  That capital is London and the station is Marylebone and there are no plans to change that.  The new railway between Oxford and Cambridge is not going to be electrified and will be worked by diesel trains and there are no plans to change that.  The DfT is going to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying for railway electrification and is pushing hydrogen and battery as viable alternatives which they are not.

    As we know an electric (and indeed a diesel) passenger train can run from London to Edinburgh easily.  A recent study showed that a viable battery powered train with the same passenger carrying capacity would under ideal conditions get no farther than York and under practical, real world conditions, would probably not make Doncaster.  By contrast a viable hydrogen powered train with the same passenger carrying capacity would struggle to reach Peterborough.  It clearly is not a golden bullet.

    If the Government want to push this green stuff then fine but let's have some up front honesty about the practicalities, costs and impact.  Without that when the fawning media finally tear themselves away from their obsession with relatively trivial issues like how people in Victorian North London town houses with no drives are going to charge up their electric cars, and start asking proper questions about the infrastructure costs, the inherent inconsistencies (and hypocrisy) in the approach and the impact on cost of living, this will all come tumbling down in a torrent of public push back.  Trying to pretend this is going to cost nothing like they are now risks undermining the whole thing. 

    The Germans are switching to hydrogen-powered trains and have some in service:


    The UK is testing hydrogen-powered trains which will provide the perfect solution for lines that cannot be electrified. It also means that it could be cost-effective to open smaller branch lines to connect towns and cut the number of cars on the road. There's some work going on where I live to do this - the main roads tend to run north/south. There's very little that connects the west of the county to the east and beyond. It could be cost-effective to build a railway if it were powered by hydrogen.

    but we have roads that are built already, why build railways?
    all you need is hydrogen-powered  buses, autonomous at some point in the future
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 24601


    but we have roads that are built already, why build railways?
    all you need is hydrogen-powered  buses, autonomous at some point in the future

    It's about freight - that's why HS2 is being built. Getting trucks off the road will help. As for more train lines where I live in Herts roads have reached max capacity. The A1 is two lanes for large sections. The motorway is clogged every day with traffic and the air quality is worse than in central London. There are still old railway lines that could be reactivated with small trains that could shuttle people between local towns for work etc.

    Coaches are for long-haul trips - trains already cover this. The best solution is to basically improve public transport and tax cars off the road. I worked in Denmark - most people don't have cars as the tax is so high. They use excellent, cheap public transport.

    Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • crunchmancrunchman Frets: 11413
    edited July 2021


    but we have roads that are built already, why build railways?
    all you need is hydrogen-powered  buses, autonomous at some point in the future

    Buses are slow.  My journey to work takes twice as long on the bus as it does to drive, and nearly three times as long as cycling.  That's in a city, but the same applies outside of cities.  The bus journey from my home town to the nearest city takes about an hour.  You can drive it in 25 minutes.

    The majority of people are not going to be willing to get out of cars to use buses just because buses are so slow. 

    The other thing is the freight issue as mentioned by @Fretwired and @Gassage. The existing lines just don't have the capacity for freight.  The difference in speed between the freight trains and the faster passenger trains makes it worse.  You need to leave bigger gaps between trains for safety, which limits capacity even further.

    The big benefit of HS2 is capacity, not a half hour quicker journey between London and the North.  It's not just the capacity of HS2 itself but what it does on the existing main lines. Once it's built, speeds can reduced on the existing mainlines, which will massively increase capacity on them as you can run trains closer together at lower speeds (think about the stopping distances on your driving test).

    It will also improve safety and reduce the cost of maintenance on the existing lines.  The problem that caused the Hatfield crash was that fast passenger trains were running at around 115mph on 19th century track that was too tightly curved for that kind of speed.  That caused larger forces on the outside rail on the curve, and large amounts of wear on that rail as well.  They started using harder rail because it was more wear resistant, but it was also more brittle.  There were maintenance and inspection failings at Hatfield, and with sufficient money thrown at it, it is possible to run trains safely at that kind of speed there, but the fundamental problem was doing 115mph on a curve with a design speed that was much lower.

    Where I think they have got it wrong with HS2 is in trying to build a 200mph railway.  We would get the capacity benefits by building a 150mph railway, and it would be a lot cheaper.  Running the trains at a lower speed would also use a lot less energy and be better for the environment.  You could also run then slightly closer together at a lower speed.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • roundthebendroundthebend Frets: 1129
    How do we get hydrogen to the filing stations? One of the benefits of battery vehicles is the simplicity of getting it from where it is generated to where it is consumed. Plus, it can be generated locally, i.e. at home, at shopping malls, at offices. I might be naïve about the infrastructure pros/cons on both sides.

    And ... To generate hydrogen we need water. That's not an infinite resource, do we have enough?

    That brings me to another point. There's often resistance to battery EVs because of the environmental concern about production and disposal. I think there's valid cause for concern. But to say we should stick with burning oil because of it is largely ridiculous, right? Worse, I believe this thread had a post printing hydrogen fuel cells because of the known environmental issues with batteries which were extrapolated to includes potential but unknown issues. This seemed to imply that Hydrogen fuel cells have no environmental issues, known or unknown. That's odd. Ultimately, we will make choices and later learn something that may make that choice look terrible, or absolute genius. We can't stand still with bad technology (ICE vehicles) just we don't know what the perfect solution is. Progress comes with challenges.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • crunchmancrunchman Frets: 11413
    How do we get hydrogen to the filing stations? One of the benefits of battery vehicles is the simplicity of getting it from where it is generated to where it is consumed. Plus, it can be generated locally, i.e. at home, at shopping malls, at offices. I might be naïve about the infrastructure pros/cons on both sides.



    Hydrogen can be extracted locally.  All you need is a water supply and electricity supply, plus a small amount of electrolyte.


    And ... To generate hydrogen we need water. That's not an infinite resource, do we have enough?

    When the fuel cells uses the hydrogen, it combines with oxygen from the air to make water again.  You get your water back.



    That brings me to another point. There's often resistance to battery EVs because of the environmental concern about production and disposal. I think there's valid cause for concern. But to say we should stick with burning oil because of it is largely ridiculous, right? Worse, I believe this thread had a post printing hydrogen fuel cells because of the known environmental issues with batteries which were extrapolated to includes potential but unknown issues. This seemed to imply that Hydrogen fuel cells have no environmental issues, known or unknown. That's odd. Ultimately, we will make choices and later learn something that may make that choice look terrible, or absolute genius. We can't stand still with bad technology (ICE vehicles) just we don't know what the perfect solution is. Progress comes with challenges.
    Hydrogen isn't perfect, but it's less bad than ICEs and battery EVs.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • roundthebendroundthebend Frets: 1129
    Thanks for the response. I genuinely don't know the subject well enough, and I want something to replace ICE. I actually want something to replace single person, long distance (>10 mile) travel.

    Just because hydrogen fuel cells produce water, I don't think you "get it back". It's still stuck in a system where is needed. How much water is needed for a car is something I don't know. If it's a few litres, maybe that's ok.

    I worry that this water use will be the eco problem for hydrogen fuel cells. Mainly, less travel is going to be the best way forward.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • grungebobgrungebob Frets: 3299
    crunchman said:
    How do we get hydrogen to the filing stations? One of the benefits of battery vehicles is the simplicity of getting it from where it is generated to where it is consumed. Plus, it can be generated locally, i.e. at home, at shopping malls, at offices. I might be naïve about the infrastructure pros/cons on both sides.



    Hydrogen can be extracted locally.  All you need is a water supply and electricity supply, plus a small amount of electrolyte.


    And ... To generate hydrogen we need water. That's not an infinite resource, do we have enough?

    When the fuel cells uses the hydrogen, it combines with oxygen from the air to make water again.  You get your water back.



    That brings me to another point. There's often resistance to battery EVs because of the environmental concern about production and disposal. I think there's valid cause for concern. But to say we should stick with burning oil because of it is largely ridiculous, right? Worse, I believe this thread had a post printing hydrogen fuel cells because of the known environmental issues with batteries which were extrapolated to includes potential but unknown issues. This seemed to imply that Hydrogen fuel cells have no environmental issues, known or unknown. That's odd. Ultimately, we will make choices and later learn something that may make that choice look terrible, or absolute genius. We can't stand still with bad technology (ICE vehicles) just we don't know what the perfect solution is. Progress comes with challenges.
    Hydrogen isn't perfect, but it's less bad than ICEs and battery EVs.

    Hydrogen is not as easily made as you state. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • DdiggerDdigger Frets: 2335
    Splitting water to make hydrogen requires more energy than you get back when you recombine it, doesn't it?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.